Supreme Court Decision

Aaron · 07-11-2008, 10:11 PM

Yes, but one could argue that obstruction of ownership of a gun is a defacto way of preventing gun ownership. California has made it impossible to buy a cheap, affordable gun by indiscriminately labeling many serviceable firearms as "Saturday night specials." It has also imposed unaffordable fees on gun purchases and transfers. The state has and continues to impose unreasonable restrictions on manufacturers which has significantly reduced the selection of guns available. Paying $35 or more to transfer a $50 .22 rifle is tantamount to prohibiting such a transfer, thus very possibly depriving a low income individual from acquiring a cheap weapon for home defense. Such laws can only be deemed "unreasonable."

07-11-2008, 10:11 PM	#33
Aaron Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vista, CA Posts: 1,008 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts	Yes, but one could argue that obstruction of ownership of a gun is a defacto way of preventing gun ownership. California has made it impossible to buy a cheap, affordable gun by indiscriminately labeling many serviceable firearms as "Saturday night specials." It has also imposed unaffordable fees on gun purchases and transfers. The state has and continues to impose unreasonable restrictions on manufacturers which has significantly reduced the selection of guns available. Paying $35 or more to transfer a $50 .22 rifle is tantamount to prohibiting such a transfer, thus very possibly depriving a low income individual from acquiring a cheap weapon for home defense. Such laws can only be deemed "unreasonable."